discusses a recent study that shows a decline in the safety net of the poorest families with children. at 9:00, andy kroll examines money and politics in this year's campaigns. lauryn williams gives us an update on the political battles over william -- women's issues. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, october 31, 2013 on this edition of the "washington journal." we will be featuring several reporters and editors from "mother jones" magazine as we put a spotlight on that publication. for we do that, two very different pictures of the new health-care law were painted yesterday with president obama touting the affordable care act in a speech in boston. just hours before that, his health and human services secretary cap points of bilious -- health and human services

uscretary kathleen sebeli repeatedly told lawmakers to hold her report filed -- to hold her responsible for the heard the rocky start. we are asking viewers whether you think it is appropriate to holder to blame, and who should be held responsible and what should happen next. republicans can call in at (202) 585-3881. democrats --(202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. if you are outside the u.s., it is (202) 585-3883. you can also catch up with us on all of your favorite social media pages, on twitter and facebook or e-mail us journal@c- span.org. a very good thursday morning to you. halloween morning.

lots of stories, lots of front- page stories about cap lanes of bilious -- about kathleen sebeli us. website'sfor the flaws." hold me accountable, she tells the panel. the story in today's "wall street journal," sebelius apologizes for the health site's woes. top health care official prefers employee or plan. i want to start by reading a bit wrapupe "politico" yesterday, what they called a split screen day, that story by jonathan allen and kerry buddha brown. the story notes that sebelius apologized to the american public but her bosses not .ooking back

host: we are taking your thoughts and comments on entsleen sebelius' comm yesterday to the house energy and commerce committee. julieg us to do that is

rovner of npr. julie, thank you for coming on. guest: good morning. host: i want to start by the two pictures up "politico" was pointing out was being merged. what was the president trying to do? guest: the president was trying to take a little heat off of secretary sebelius. the committee tried to have her up earlier, and she had deferred saying that she had a calendar conflict, try to keep her away from the hearing. when the pressure got too hot, she agreed to go up and testified before the committee, although she really kept her hours of a lot of frustrated and democrats and republicans talking about the website and this new controversy that has emerged about these cancellation letters going out, whether or not people really can keep their health plans. i think they sent the president to boston so they could kind of have another front it, if you

will, for the news media, so the president was giving a speech yesterday so there would not just be the hearing for the news media to cover. host: we will start by showing our viewers a little bit of cap lane sebelius' opening testimony in that hearing yesterday and then come back to you. [video clip] >> in these early weeks, access to healthcare.gov has been a miserably frustrating experience for way too many americans. including many who have waited cases theirme entire lives, for the security of health insurance. i am as frustrated and angry as anyone with the flawed logic of healthcare.gov. let me say directly to these americans -- you deserve better. i apologize. i am accountable to you for fixing these problems, and i am committed to earning your confidence back by fixing the site. we are working day and night,

and we will continue until it is fixed. of npr, therovner help -- the health policy correspondent there, was kathleen sebelius setting herself up your to take the fall for some of these problems? guest: clearly to your have the trifecta of apologies on tuesday. marilyn tavener at oversees the website for medicare, medicaid services, she went up and her -- and personally apologize. kathleen sebelius apologized. the president in his speech apologized. yes, we messed up, this did not work right, it is still not working right, we are working as hard as we can to fix it, but they definitely have all gone hat in hand to congress, to the american public saying we know this is not the way it is supposed to be working, we are working as hard as we can to get it right. host: we showed you kathleen sebelius. we want to show you a bit of president obama's speech in boston last night feared we will come back to you, julie rovner.

[video clip] >> right now, the website is too slow, too many people have gotten stuck, and i am not happy about it. and neither are a lot of americans who need health care, and they are trying to figure out how they can sign up as quickly as possible. so there is no excuse for it. full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed asap. we are working overtime to improve it every day. if you had one of these substandard plants before the affordable care act became law, and you really like that plan, you were able to keep it. that is what i said when i was running for office. that was part of the promise we made. but ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these what weard plants, said is you have to replace them with quality, comprehensive

coverage. that was a premise of the affordable care act from the very beginning. and today, that promise means that every plan in the marketplace covers a core set of minimum benefits like maternity care, preventative care, mental health care, prescription drug benefits, and hospitalization. they cannot use allergies or pregnancy or a sports end of -- a sports injury or the fact that you are a woman to charge you more. [applause] this issue because of the president's past statements. is this going to continue to be a problem for him? guest: i keep calling it a shiny object for everybody to focus on. these insurance companies who are telling people that they are going to stop offering their they areolicy, offering them new policies, they are required to offer the new

processes or they can go into new exchanges and find replacement policies. certainly no one will be without insurance, but a lot of people are frustrated, saying that they will have to pay more. of course, some people may pay less, and some people have pet insurance that really does not cover very much, although if they are healthy, they may not know that. it is kind of a confusing situation for a lot of people, but a lot of people are complaining to their members of congress that they had insurance and they have been paying a certain amount and now they are getting letters and being told that they're going to have to pay more, so it is not a good political situation. the president did say when it was running for office, when he was trying to get the bill passed and afterwards that if you like your insurance, you can keep it. that is not strictly speaking be case. before you we let you go, a couple of hearings on the health-care law. what is on tap next week and on the road? guest: we have hearings this week in the house and ways and means and energy and commerce committee. the head of cms and secretary sebelius head off to the senate

to the senate health committee and the senate finance committee, so we get to do it all over again on the other side of capitol hill. host: julie rovner, we will be looking for your work on that subject from ntr, health correspondent there. thank you for getting up with us this morning. guest: thank you. host: we want to get our viewers thoughts, yesterday that kathleen sebelius is responsible. the president saying that he takes full responsibility. is it time for us to start assigning blame for this, and if so, who is responsible? johnny is up next from west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good. town here,my little first of all, we are like the second poorest state in the united states. my insurance for my children went from portal -- $450 to $621, and i cannot afford that, so i had to cancel it. so now my children do not have insurance. i can understand why our leaders

would do something like this to people. another thing is, the only thing i hear on here is about upper class and middle class. what about the lower-class? ever mentions the lower- class in west virginia. it is unacceptable. i sure appreciate your time. host: johnny, he went for the call this morning. george is waiting on our democrat line in memphis, tennessee. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span and thank you for taking my call. i think everybody is responsible. the democrats are responsible for not getting out and testing the thing, and the republicans have been fighting against it tooth and nail since day one. and now they are mad because it is not going right. you don't put these exchanges and all the state and utah on the government to put these exchange is up, it is not fair to the american people that

the republican states are not going to put the exchanges in, and then when it goes back, the first person they want to lean on as president obama. it is has filed a little bit though because he should have been on top of what is going down on the website. and then everybody would've had a chance to enjoy something that is going to be cheaper, and everybody that is talking about canceling their policies, that is because they are dumped policies. they put these policies out after the lock them out, low price, and then when they go to the hospital, they are out of pocket for over $1000. so sebelius needs to get on her job, too, because everybody is responsible. host: ok. on twitter this morning, radical rights and that the blame goes to democrats in the general. they passed this train wreck. -- different view from bill king on twitter who writes -- who is responsible for the problems and rollout of the aca?

the republicans -- 42 attempts to dismantle it and lack of support. comments,ebook page, talking about sebelius' tes timony. i think it was the right thing to do. buckook start -- the stops with her. i have more respect for her for stepping up than i would've to pass the blame elsewhere. even though she is not 100% responsible. send us your e-mail, facebook posts all morning for the next half hour or so on this subject. fixedashington post" column, the headline from the post earring wrap up yesterday -- how cap lane -- how kathleen sebelius may have sealed her own fate. she did two things. one, she won the undying loyalty of many democrats, including those in the white house, for taking all of the incoming without trying to deflect blame.

remember, part of the job for the cabinet official is to be a shield for the president. two, if she was already, and she probably was, sebelius became the face of obama care for every single person who does not like the law. by bear hugging responsibility for the problems, sebelius set herself up for the wait for being -- set herself a perfect way for being the sacrificial lamb if and when obama and his senior team decide that a public move must be made to show he understands the depth of the problem. we will go to our independents line. john is waiting from emerson, new jersey. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you very much for c-span. sebelius, what she did not apologize for, and mr. obama did not apologize for our the millions of people, i am one of them, whose health care they liked was canceled, but more importantly the doctor that they

have been seeing, the doctor that they have had for years, , on ahey trust and like new so-called lands that are available, once you get your plan canceled, many cannot see their doctors. my wife is extremely upset about this. this is outrageous. it is un-american to take away someone's rights to see their own doctor. it is unacceptable. it is not right. it is not right. host: john from new jersey this morning. new jersey having its new senator, cory booker, sworn in this morning at the capital. that is happening today. john is bringing up some of the folks who are losing their health care plans, their coverage that they currently have. that is the subject of several stories in a lead editorial in today's "wall street journal." you can keep your health plan is the headline. president obama's promise had a

secret footnote. who knew? karl rove, republican commentator, also wrote about this in a column -- the president's broken health-care promise. that is the headline also from the "wall street journal." the subject was the topic of fact checker in today's "washington post." he says that obama's health-care vials were unequivocally wrong host host: and the one set lack

essential protections, and that many people may qualify for tax credits host: glenn kessler in today's fact checker column in the "washington post." we go to lucy now in virginia on our line for republicans. we're talking about kathleen sebelius' statements. your thoughts on that. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. think it is something that we are all looking, first of all, i

think the general public has become so much more aware of what was in this very massive bill in the last month. what i heard computer experts website did on the not begin until eight or nine months ago, in other words, after the 2012 election. because as we are seeing this , we are becoming aware of all of the problems that are in it. so someone had pointed out well, you had 3.5 years to make it, this website, and the computer person said well, actually, no, it has only been eight or nine months. i think if all of these problems

had been articulated prior to the 2012 election, who knows, maybe it would have gone another way. host: ok, we will go to carol now from same, -- from st. louis, missouri. is it time to start assigning blame for some of the early problems with the health care exchange rollout? caller: actually, i hold the president responsible. here is what i hold him responsible for -- my grandchildren that are under 26 are covered. my granddaughter, who is 27 with a pre-existing condition, can now get insurance. she had one of those inferior policies, and they paid nothing when she needed it. he closed the donut hole for me on medicare for the prescription drugs, and the man who said it is on acceptable not to be able for his wife to have her own doctor, what is really on acceptable is for millions of people not to be able to have a

doctor period. our republican line, richie is waiting in on vernon, new york. good morning. caller: good morning. the problem that i find is how the president said what he said now, it would have been a big different picture because people would have been started asking questions. listen to what he said. he said you cannot lose anything period. that is why we have this political problem. people would have started asking questions. under what condition? he would've had to explain himself. he is the one is possible for everything. the media is not responsible. --sebelius is not responsible. she is a competent, but she is not responsible. person responsible is the president of the united states. host: all right, little but more

from a hearing yesterday with kathleen sebelius. this is her sparring yesterday with house republicans vice chair of the energy and commerce committee marsha blackburn, a republican of tennessee. [video clip] nbc news, his us millions are going to lose their coverage. >> well, in all deference to the press corps, many of whom are here today, i think that it is important to be accurate about what is going on, and i would differ, again, to the president -- >> break limey -- >> they will have ongoing coverage. wille markets are now qualify. >> what you say to mark and lucinda in my district who have a plan, they liked it, it was affordable, but it is being terminated, and now they do not have health insurance? cancelrance companies individual policies in your in and you're out. they are one-year contracts

individually. -- year in and year out. >> let me move on. i will remind you, some people like to drive a ford, not a ferrari, and some people like to drink out of a red solo cup and not a crystal stem. you are taking away their choices. host: kathleen sebelius yesterday. a few comments on her appearance. does notsays sebelius blame subordinates, takes on her chin herself. how many in these hearings do? filee same subject, boring clerk says -- just because she took the blame does not mean that she will be reprimanded. nothing will come of this. we will be talking about this subject for about the next 25 minutes or so on the "washington journal." a few other headlines to point out for you this morning. fresh start in budget talks, taxes are so the rub, talking about the negotiations of the

budget wednesday that began. thatwashington post" notes lawmakers began by opening negotiations to avoid another government shutdown and adopt lasting changes to rein in the national debt. notice that the issue of taxes continues to loom over these budget talks once again as the biggest road block in a path to compromise. on that same subject, today's "wall street journal" notes that any impetus for a bold deficit reduction deal was stifled within hours of the budget meetingors' initial yesterday when the administration announced that the

paper.hat is today's we're talking with our viewers and callers about the hearings yesterday. anceleen sebelius' appear before the house energy and commerce committee, and her statement was i am responsible. she said i am responsible for the problems with the rollout of the health-care law. we will go to bob now from philadelphia, pennsylvania on our line for independents. good morning. caller: good morning. i want is a health fair and balanced you guys are. i was watching "charlie rose" on

cbs, and they were talking about obamacare and sebelius being questioned. they never mentioned if she would ask if she would enroll in obamacare, but you did this morning and you mentioned that, and i just want to congratulate you for being fair. thepe the realize -- i hope viewers realize how biased they are. my policy was quincy -- was canceled. when people call in, when you asked them, if they had their policy canceled and they are unhappy, ask them if they voted for obama. host: bob, did you vote for obama? caller: yeah, i did, like an idiot. anyway, my policy was canceled, and i'll use that you were supposed to be offered another policy. they never offered me anything. they just said it would be canceled december 31 and we strongly suggest you look into the exchange. i said, why is my policy being canceled? they said it is in very are in does not match the qualifications of obamacare. i said such as what. it is not have mature --

prenatal care or maternity care on there, it is not have drug rehab canceling for drug abuse. that is what my policy is, yet i just went through cancer, paid all my ills, but i do not have drug counseling or prenatal care. that is what made my policy inferior. i am sorry, this president is doing more damage to this country. i hope you people that don't see this, that is what you call blind loyalists. i just want to thank you for what you are doing. l fromk, we go to steven richmond, virginia on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span third i blame this on republicans, the tea party, and john boehner because they have been fighting this from day one. they appealed it over 40 times. by them not being part of the solution, they want to be part of the problem. so they are going to make it a headache for the people. but they do not realize the reason why there policy is theeled because this is

affordable act law, the companies have to meet the standards to be approved. they have to offer them a better package. you know. that is what it is all about. the republicans are going to fight this until the end because they're trying to look know,s as political, you politics. that is all this is for them. try to game. that is all i have to say. thank you very much. host: james on twitter relates -- sebelius -- james on twitter toates sebelius' comments another -- hillary took responsibility for benghazi been proceeded to tell the panel "what difference at this point doesn't make?" -- does it make?"

republican cory gardner at that she would enroll herself in the health-care plans on one of the obamacare exchanges. the "washington times" has that story. sebelius refused because she has an employer-based coverage from the federal government ont: the "washington times" the wrapup of that exchange with congressman cory gardner. david is up next on our line for

independents from conway, massachusetts. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. a couple of points i would like to make. i watched the hearing, and there were so many questions on the same issue of and the issue was on cancellations. i believe that it is a complete red herring. the fact is that in the law, there was a wide path to grandfather insurance policies, and it was available to the insurance company. they chose not to take that path. they chose instead to change the policies. and the republicans have jumped a this to claim that this is major flaw and it is hurting so thoseeople, when in fact people did not have real insurance in the first place. so many of those individual

policies cut you off the minute you get sick. and they have very limited benefits. the second point of blame might be the total amount of attempts to repeal this and total noncooperation. the states that have embraced the program seem to be doing much better than the states that have not. they have embraced that, they have gotten better results. i listenedssue when to the hearing, and i heard people talk about well, you have --nt, you know, 1.4 billion 1.4 million, etc., i am not sure the exact amount that was spent on the website, but they conveniently forgot to mention the fact that they just caused $.4 billion, or thereabouts, with a government shutdown. billion, ored $24

thereabouts, with a government shutdown. that seems very just ingenuous -- very disingenuous. host: we will go to a republican caller. good morning. you are on the "washington journal." caller: thank you. yes, sir. thetown was made with all responses negatively pointed at the president of the united states and that secretary sebelius. person,etired military and if you are in a position such that secretary sebelius is in, she has a responsibility, serving at the president's, under the president. to jumpa responsibility on her sword because that is her

position. the job that we are talking about is under her auspices. if the president of the united states and all of us -- i am a republican. i have always been a republican. ridiculous that we said and we talk about things like this everyday rather than trying to resolve the problem. the problem is we have a health care problem in this country. that is care problem the responsibility of the republicans, the democrats, the independents, the tea party s, for all of us to take care of everybody. we are supposed to be a judeo- christian country. we have a responsibility to take care of everybody. says over twitter

this morning -- to sit the republicans are responsible for the road without -- for the rollout of obamacare because they oppose is ludicrous. only the executive branch is in control. we will continue to talk about that subject. we have about 15 minutes until we had over two "mother jones" magazine. we'll be having the rest of the show after this first segment of "washington journal" there. you can see the offices of this morning. we will be joined by editors and reporters from "mother jones" to talk about their work in the history and mission of "mother jones." we have about 15 more minutes. a few other news stories to talk about this morning. here is the from page of the "washington post" on the latest involving those leaks from former nsa contractor edward snowden.

host: if you want to read more on that story, that is the front page of the "washington post." the front page of today's "usa just a little bit from that piece.

host: that story in today's "usa today." on this subject of the hearings yesterday, play more calls and comments, some e-mails coming in. if you watched the hearing, you know a lot more about how wonderful it is that millions more will be covered. ,ecretary sebelius was direct and the congress representatives showed their hate and anger and. mona this morning -- hate and ignorance. mona this morning e-mailing entered we go to stanley on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: happy thursday. enemy and it is us. it is amazing be caller's and a lack of knowledge. i mean, they are basically regurgitating partyline talking

points. we need to do a lot more research and a lot more looking into the real facts. i think sebelius did an excellent job of answering the questions. by the way, i think history will rate obama in the top 10 presidents. we just need to do more research. ok, we go to raymond from george on our line for independents. raymond, good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, washington, america. we need a universal premium, just one premium for everybody. it is as young people, wrong for the young people to basics under dollars, $700 a month in insurance when they are probably not even going to use it. if you had a universal, say $150 premium for everyone in the communism, pure

socialism, $150 a month for everybody. ok. the young, healthy people will not use it. that will be $150 pure profit. the older people will balance out. but anyway, the amount of money would be one thing, but it should be universal. we should not discredit against young for one reason or the old for another reason. host: ok. e-mail this morning from barbara asks who is responsible for the fact that the conversation is about who is to blame? what is accomplished by blame? what is the point of the law? do people understand how insurance committee's work? work?urance companies ron is up next. caller: good morning. i just have a quick commentary iteris thank you for c-span, and anyway -- i did have a quick

comment. thank you for c-span. i was just wondering on what people were looking at the tv screaming at her do not do this to me. that is all i have got to say. thank you. host: talking about a moment during her exchange with ranking member of the energy and commerce committee henry waxman, a democrat from california. themore column on this from media mashup column in today's "washington times" by christopher harper -- sticker shock from obamacare gets little attention, he writes. host: christopher harper goes on to note his own experience in effect that his insurance costs will be raised by about 200% if he actually signed up through the website. he says

host: we are taking your: comments this morning. we have about five minutes left on the subject. we will go to gregory from florida on our line for democrats. gregory, good morning. caller: good morning. i am a disappointed democrats. i was one of those i got the letter. i am a retired truck driver, and two years ago, i got a catastrophic policy to get me through the three years until i get to medicare. to covere wherewithal that's $10,000 that i might've had to pay out-of-pocket in my premium of a because of my age, $424 a month. well, the only reason they got

dropped or i got dropped was because they just dropped two minor things that mean nothing to me. hearing coverage and some i dental- and some minor coverage. because of that, because of the narrowness of the law, they take that policy away from me. now, looking at the florida blue , because in florida, that is who you end up with, that same policy or similar but with all the new restrictions, meaning i now have to have maternity. [laughter] that is kind of silly. $898. now, that is $5,000 more a year out of my pocket for a minor change. absolutely silly. saidhy when the government i could keep the policy, they were being disingenuous, and i

don't think i can vote democratic again unless they fix this problem. thank you. host: ok, gregory this morning. a few other stories to bring you to real quick. yesterday in the capitol building, the dedication of winston churchill's bust. boehner,aker john secretary of state john kerry, senate majority leader harry reid, senate minority leader mitch mcconnell and house minority leader nancy pelosi coming together. hearinger said that the -- mr. boehner said at the hearing that he was "the best friend the u.s. ever had." today's "washington times" notes that the justice department is joining a suit against a security firm that performed background checks on both the navy yard shooter and edward snowden. the justice department said wednesday that it was joining a lawsuit against the firm.

host: we have got time for a few more calls on the subject of the hearing yesterday with kathleen sebelius, the secretary of health and human services. mary is waiting from michigan on our line for independents. mary, good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to thank you all. i also wanted to say that it is very disingenuous of the

president, kathleen sebelius, and other democrats to say that the reason people are getting dropped is that they have substandard insurance. ,hat may have been the case however, it is not up to them to decide what people want or need for their insurance. people know what they need, and they know what their doctors want. they know who they have been using. i know for us, we have been having be same insurance for more than 20 years. now, if our insurance premium ofs up by $1 as a result language added to obamacare after it was passed, we can be canceled. that is a fact. it has nothing to do with being substandard. it has to do with the fact that they made these sweeping changes that say a man who is 80 needs to have prenatal care. that is insane. host: mary, would you agree with this column in today's

"washington post" who writes that these questions go to the philosophical and ideological question that divide how democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, look at the world. should people continue to have the choice to buy insurance that, for many, will turn out to be inadequate? caller: well, i was a democrat until i realized that they were, in my estimate, turning socialist on me. i feel that this is part of that socialization of this sweeping change that the democrats want to make to our country. and i don't believe in it, and i don't believe that they should be able to dictate to people matters of health care because that is your very life. host: ok. we go to willing now from

ridgewood, new york on our republican line. go ahead, willie. caller: i just have to comment spared how many more millions would have lost their insurance if they did not suspend that employee mandate? the second thing is if you look at this rollout, it goes to show that the government could not run a hot dog stand. that is all i got to say. host: ok, our last comment in the segment, it is going to go to roland from salem, new hampshire on our line for independents. caller: i have my own insurance, i have been paying for it for the last 10 years, and it has tripled. now i have to make the choice to drop my insulin because i cannot afford it. i have another question i wanted to bring up to your attention toward what happens when they put all these illegal immigrants into the system? are we going to go bankrupt? is insurance going to go sky high?

these politicians -- and they are in there, and i don't understand -- do they have shares in the stock for the drug companies and the insurance companies? because somebody is making an awful lot of money on this. host: ok, roland from new hampshire this morning. that is going to do for this precipitate -- for this first segment of "washington journal" this morning. our next segment, we will be at the bureau of the "mother jones ." davidrst guest will be jones. this is a magazine spotlights. later on, we will be joined by domestic policy reporter stephanie mencimer to discuss her study and welfare benefits. we will be right back. ♪ >> john foster dulles had recently died when the super

airport in chantilly virginia was being built, and president eisenhower immediately announced that the airport would be named dulles airport. for a while after kennedy took over, he did not want to named over a crusty old warrior, but the decision was made to name it after dulles. filman still see the footage of kennedy opening it, he pulls back a curtain, and behind the current is the diane's -- the giant bust of john foster-- dulles. i went to see it while i was writing this book, and i cannot find it. i started asking the security guards, where is the big west of dulles? nobody had ever even heard of it. it was a long process. finally, i was able to discover that the bust had been taken away from its place in the middle of the airport, and it is now in a close conference room opposite baggage claim number three.

i find this a wonderful metaphor for how the dulles brothers, who at one time exercised earth shattering power and were able to make and break governments, have now been effectively forgotten and airbrushed out of our entire history. >> with john foster heading state and alan at cia, the dulles brothers led both overt and covert operations for a good portion of the cold war. find out how the ramifications can still be felt some 60 years later with stephen kinzer sunday night at 8:00 on c-span's q&a. "washington journal" continues. " has beenher jones around since 1976, and this morning, washington bureaus corn joins us. guest: good morning.

glad to be with you. host: we talk abut the mission of your publication. let's talk about how "mother jones" got started and how you came up with a name "mother jones." guest: i was not there when it happened. it was back in may 1970's, and it was loud bunch of folks, progressive journalists and some activists who want to put together a magazine, a media entity, that would do some real fantastic recording, which they saw not happening within the mainstream media. they really wanted the absence -- the emphasis to be on investigation, not ranting, raving, and analysis, and so on. and so they put together a magazine and started the monthly. very soon it was breaking news corruption,cal politics, and those of been our core issues ever since. the name was named after mary jo harris, who called herself "mother jones," who was a labor

leader and activist. she called herself a hell raiser 20th century, 100 years ago or so. they had the project all plotted out, any type of magazine they wanted to do, and they were -- they were stuck on a name. they were about to do a mass mailing to get subscribers. so what he suggested this comment else that yet, great name. and that is what happened. host: what is the mission of "mother jones" today? guest: our tagline is smart, fearless journalism, and that is what we aim to do again and again. we want to eliminate, educate, engage on subject matters that we think are very important. they can be money in politics, climate change, the state of politics, the influence of power in america, and like i said, the

early mission was -- you know, we are reporting driven. as you will see behind me, i do not know what you can see up there, but we have 10 reporters in this bureau alone. we have reporters and other places as well. we don't focus on commentary, we don't focus on a lot of political analysis. we do some of that. but mainly we focus on reporting stories that we find are important. they can be things that are in the news, and we report them out in a way that is unique and different than what is happening in the rest of the media, or they can be things that are totally different but are quite important, that are not getting the attention that we believe they should be getting. host: what do you think the status of investigative journalism is today for magazines? are there to me magazines that focus on opinion writing -- are there too many up magazines that focus on opinion writing? media, legacyshed

media, i think their newsrooms and their news budgets have been squeezed tremendously over the last 10 years, and they just don't devote all the resources they should. in the meantime, i see the rise of nonprofit journalism, and i should say "mother jones" is a we get a entity, little bit of a tax write off. not much, but a little bit. center fore investigative reporting and things like that out there that kind of fill the gap. but i do think that overall, media landscape is being driven increasingly by the news of the moment, whether it is celebrity news or political news, real news, and that there is a lot less time and energy and resources available for doing deep dives and for looking at that are not in the immediate spotlight, that are not in front of us as we are all on our twitter-like hamster

wheel. have if the viewers questions or comments for david corn, the bureau chief for "mother jones," the lines are open. republicans can call (202) 585- 3881. democrats, (202) 585-3880. independents, (202) 585-3882. we'll be talking to him for about the next 40 minutes or so andhe "washington journal," mr. corn, as we lay out those lines, i want to talk to you about how do you prefer to describe your magazine? is it progressive, is liberal the term, and what do you say to folks who call your magazine as it is listed on your frequently asked questions page a lefto pinko rag? guest: i say they are wrong. we are a progressive driven organization. is, i tendook at it

to see our political values as very determining more of what we at thend how we look world and what subjects, what areas we decide to focus on because we don't do a lot of commentary, as i noted. , biases ofal value people who were care, reporters, are not as important. we really are about digging out new fax. i really think that the killer is telling people things they don't know. with the rise of the internet and the growth of blogging and tweeting and everything else, getting opinion, getting views is really easy these days. an opinion is like a backside -- everyone has one. getting well-developed stories that require reporting, that require time and ask for sees, is very difficult. we get most of our traffic

story when we produce a that people say oh, my god, i have got to read this, i want to knwow the facts here. that is where it comes in on the sort of stories, whether you are a conservative or a liberal do some matter very much. thate do not hide the fact we consider ourselves a progressive organization. and that shapes the way we see our mission. host: let's talk about your latest piece this morning on "mother jones" website, ted cruz's dad called the usa christian nation. says obama should go back to kenya. tell us about this piece. guest: this story came about because i spent a couple of days looking at videos of rafael cruz, who is the 74-year-old, 75-year-old father of senator ted cruz. evangelicalis an

pastor who lives in texas. he used to live in cuba. he is to be a businessman before he turned to preaching. i found a lot of excessive or extreme rhetoric and videos of him speaking at republican and tea party groups. people may say wait a second, you cannot blame the sum for the -- son for the rhetoric or sense of the father. that is usually the case. i do not want to be held accountable for what my parents had disappeared but there's is one big deception here -- ted cruz uses his father extensively -- there is one big exception here -- ted cruz uses his father extensively. he sent rafael cruz to republican groups, tea party groups to speak on his behalf. your tempe manager are running mate or somebody isbe's comments -- so it like your campaign manager or running mate or somebody made

these comments. is remarks that rafael cruz making in which he says things like the u.s. is a christian nation, hate is not used judeo- christian -- he does not use judeo-christian nation. he said "president barack obama is destroying the concept of god." he says that voters should send obama back to kenya, so he sounds like a birther there. he is giving sermons in which he says women should not be the spiritual leaders of their homes and families. that is a job only for men. women only do it if the men do not do it. he is ardently against gay rights, but he calls gay rights a conspiracy to make the government your god. i don't quite follow the logic there, but that is what he said. he called the president repeatedly a marxist, he comparison to fidel castro. i showd a lot of this --

the videos. there are also videos, so there's no question that these are the sort of things that istor cruz, ted cruz's dad, saying on behalf of his son. host: did you talk to senator cruz's office? did they give you a statement? guest: yes. i spent a lot of time with them yesterday which they said pastor cruz does not speak for the senator, when in fact he does. you can look at these videos and say i am here on behalf of my son. he has asked me to thank you and get you out here to work for his campaign. -- and they say also say -- they had not seen the article, they said that i was mischaracterizing pastor cruz's remarks. i do not know how they could say that before seeing the article. but none of this is mischaracterized. it is him saying that he believes the u.s. as a christian nation and we can should send

barack obama back to kenya. i don't really know how to mischaracterized that when he says obama believes god should be destroyed and the government should be your god. campaign person said this, a press secretary said this, senator ted cruz still should explain whether he believes the things that his father is saying and respond to them rather than just sort of i am mischaracterizing them. but readers and viewers, i encourage them to go to motherjones.com and they can watch this. they do not have to take my word for it. they can watch rafael cruz talk yanut obama as a ken marxist who wants to destroy god. host: we are talking to david corn of "mother jones." we're spotlighting "mother jones " today on the "washington journal."

onependence writes in twitter -- i used to hide my issues of "mother jones," and now it and david corn are excepted american journalism. the times have changed. guest: i take that as a complement. thank you. i have to say though that over the years, "mother jones has broken lots of stories. we had the exploding pinto story when we came up with documents that the ford motor company new that the pinto car was prone to explosions from the gas tank in certain coalitions and chose not to do anything about it because it was too expensive and they would rather pay off the lawsuits. long been onhas the forefront of independent american journalism but i am happy to hear that tweet say

that they believe that the magazine is becoming more established. host: does that concern you? guest: free republic is a website where people post things, it's not journalism. i don't see the comparison. people are free to come to whatever conclusions they want. if you look at the story i did last year on the mitt romney 47% remark -- as i say, i was covering the campaign and i bring my own perspective how i cover things but that story literally spoke for itself. son does not want to take that -- if that person does not want to take that it into anythingi cannot do

about it. andad "the national review" "the american spectator" and i them on the facts that put forward and sometimes i find that lacking. robert costa has done great reporting on the government shutdown. the viewer here is missing out. host: we are taking calls and comments as we talked to david corn. we will start with lidia from woodstock, illinois, on our line for independents. caller: good morning, and thank you. onppreciate being on halloween. it is significant because grove r, as an 11-year-old, came up with a protection pledge. my theory is that he wants them on the facts that put forward and sometimesgovernmento drown in a bathtub. is the model for small

government and rather than going out trick-or-treating, goes out with his pledge blanket to be rewarded for his loyalty to the isat pumpkin who, obviously, grover norquist. whatld like you to explain role grover norquist has an washington, d.c. and where there in washington, d.c.? there are a lot of charles schultz peanuts references in that question. is, who ist of it grover norquist and why does anyone pay attention to him? grover has been a republican for decades here in washington and he created the american tax reform group which andgotten house republicans senate republicans, two and congressional candidates, to

pledge not to raise any taxes. of grover the fear into them when it comes to considering raising revenue to do something about the deficit. we have heard repeatedly from centrists and moderate republicans that the republican party is to in hock to this anti-tax pledge. that gets in the way of coming up with maybe a grand bargain that the president would like to see in terms of doing entitlements and tax revenues to deal with the long-term debt issues. a bit of aas put monkeywrench into the works here which is what grover wants to do. that he wants to decrease the size of government so it becomes so small that you can drown it in the bathtub. i don't know if he wants to drown people who are receiving receivingans or are

medicare or are beneficiaries of cancer research. people are getting food stamps and people are in head start. will they all be drowned, to? buts a pretty glib phrase as we learned recently with the shutdown and as we see repeatedly repeatedly, there are many people in america who benefit and depend upon government services and the idea of making it smaller just for the sake of making it smaller appeals, i think, to people who may have been in the av and libertarian club in high school. that's not the way the world works or it it's not the way i think most americans see the government. they don't like the government. but they want the government to be active and provide a pretty healthy and robust social safety net. we are talking with david corn, the washington bureau chief of "mother jones."

how long have you had a washington bureau and how long have you been the chief? hostguest: they started the buru around 2007. i used to work at "the nation magazine." opportunity to work with six people here and now we have 15 people in the washington bureau and henry porters and five others. -- and 10 reporters and five others. it really seems to be one of the bigger bureaus in washington these days. host: based in san francisco, is that correct? guest: yes. host: how big is the bureau in san francisco? don't know, altogether because we have an office in new

york and elsewhere, we have about 85 people on the step altogether and it's about double the size of what it was five or six years ago. host: we are talking with david corn. if you want to talk with him, give us a call. linda is waiting on our line for republicans from florida. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. this is linda from florida. time caller and longtime listener. heanted to ask david corn -- was the first one that ever came out and started calling bush a liar. kepte w. bush -- and he repeating that. he said to keep repeating it until everybody keep calling him a liar. i would like to ask david corn when he will start calling this president a liar. we have so many things like nsa, the irs, and now this wholeyork healthcare -t is a joke. can i ask you a question first?

can i ask you what the president lied about when it comes to benghazi? caller: we don't know what he was doing. guest: we are talking about lying. let's stick to that. he just said the president was lying about and ghazi. everybody covers for him. he does not have to answer for anything. all he ever does is out campaigning all the time. he is supposed to be a president. why is he a president? he does not lead or do anything great only does is go out and agitate people. he is a community agitator and he is the one that has to guide this country and we don't want any of your leftist progressive views. i don't really know how to respond to that. she wanted to talk about lying but she did not give an example. if you get into this stuff, you need to have some specifics. she says the president does not do anything as a president.

i suppose you can ask the auto industry if that's true. they've -- do they believed he was not leading on the bailout? you can ask the folks who put together the mission that killed osama bin laden? there are things the president and any president can be criticized for but it seems to me that what we see here is just a tremendous hatred on the right for barack obama so that the i'm sureke linda, who is speaking in good faith, cannot really give us specifics. she just comes up with these wide-ranging critiques. the president is not doing anything, not a leader, out there campaigning -- you can look at his schedule everyday. it's on the internet if you care to and and you can see the meetings he is doing and what he is working on and who he is talking to and putting together budgets or whatever. you may not like the president or like his positions or not like what he has done but it that it is not a

productive argument to make the case that he just doesn't do anything. at "the washington post" fact checker column, they were talking about the president's statements about the health care plan. the comment about keeping your health coverage got for pinocchio's. the president's previous statement and what's happening with the health care plan? guest: when you make bold statements like that, it makes it easy for people to come out later and say you are wrong. what's happening with these insurance cancellation plans, we have had a little coverage and we have another story pending that will be out later today. it is not as simple as some of the president's critics like to think. plane -- if the plans

were grandfathered in, they would not be canceled at insurance companies have the right to change plans and to cancel. they might offer you something better with more money or less money. i think the resident probably went too far -- i think the president probably went two for talking that way but the big issue is that because of the opposition in this country, you think the opposition to obamacare a strong, opposition to a single-payer plan and for all was even stronger politically. the president went ahead without plan in which private insurance companies still are the major providers of health insurance in this country. i think being regulated in a positive way. i now have to devote more premiums to health care and not to profits and overhead. they are being regulated but they still have the right, in many ways, to jack up prices

come in to cancel policies, in some ways, the president has married himself to the private health-insurance industry. i think that's kind of unfortunate and will continue to but itroblem's for him is not hhs and others that are canceling these policies. it is the health insurance companies and they are trying to blame obama care for it. host: let's go to illinois on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning, hi, david. guest: how are you doing? tackle littlego bit too when clinton was in office. how much money did we have? guest: how much money? excuse me? we certainly had a surplus. caller: $5.6 trillion, right? thing that's the type of i look up before getting into numbers but if you have in front

of you, go ahead. caller: i don't have to have it in front of me, i watched it since 1998. republicans - the how much money did we waste in iraq for no reason? guest: listen, it's quite clear that republicans want to talk about deficits and debt and all that. the wars in iraq and afghanistan are the biggest contributors to the debt and deficit because george bush raise taxes to cover the cost of those wars as any good fiscal conservative might do. that wesaid to america can put these on our credit card and let other people pay for it and if this crowds outspending on food stamps, environmental protection, cancer research, that's for somebody else to worry about down the road. maybe we can cut money from social security beneficiaries to pay for these wars and the interest we rack up putting

these wars on the credit card. i think that is really -- go to the center for budget and policy and they have lots of good charts that show that the wars in iraq and afghanistan are really the big drivers of the current deficits and national debt. host: david is from indiana on our line for independents. you are on with david corn. caller: i just wanted to make a few comments. it goes back to the tea party. i think we need to remember who made the tea party and it was the republicans who actually wanted to block obama. i think their far right agenda created a far right party. when they lost control of it, they started pointing fingers at everybody else. we have to thank our special interest friends likely koch

brothers for the tea party also. the tea party is about cutting and i think they are cutting blindly. when you start messing with the budget and start pulling numbers out, you will lose more jobs, you will lose more tax revenue. obsessed about our debt. it's not always about --. sometimes that is good. we have been spending the last few years out of the recession, going back to normal, but back in 2000, we had the interest on $224 billion. $5.6.s. national debt was billion. today we are at --

i'm sorry, five point six dollars trillion and today we are at $17 trillion and our interest on debt has only $25 billion.ut there is not that much of an increase. he is making a good point. right now, the tea party types are screaming about debt, debt, debt and the national deficit. i understand why in general it seems it is not good to have too much debt and it is not good to run deficits. a sickly, every household in america does if you have a mortgage. -- basically, every household american does if you have a mortgage and you are paying it off over time or on student loans or car loans or putting anything on a credit card for month-to-month. right now, interest rates are tremendously low come our economy is sluggish, it's a good ase to be are owing money

long as you borrow it for the right money. if you borrow it to buy beer, it will not help you in the long run. it may be fun but if you borrow money to send a kid to school or to educate yourself in a way to house your family -- those are good solid investments. if we are using money now, which we borrowed at a cheap rate, hopefully, we will not have another default or shut down that will raise rates which is -- which is ap tremendously negative impact but if you can borrow money now to rebuild the infrastructure of this country and invest in education, invest in basic science whether it is biomedical or other forms of science that would create jobs down the road, those are all good reasons to borrow. simplisticrty antagonism toward any form of debt or deficits is not only

misplaced, it is foolhardy and you cannot be out there saying i and at the same time you strangle it of funding. down,ole government shut by some estimates, cost $24 billion in economic activity. people lost jobs and paychecks and were not hired and we are still reeling from that. that is just not good policy. host: here is a tweet -- thanks for writing in. i think right now there is absolutely no telling. as anybody who watches c-span knows, the news cycles just get quicker and quicker and shorter and shorter. we will have another government budget and debt ceiling fight or some episode engendering february. it may happen again in the summer or next fall or before the election.

by and large, the government shut down drove everybody's numbers down but particularly republicans and they were lucky there was no election immediately after that. haveey had, there might been a slight chance that they would lose the house. it pushed them down to pretty low levels of approval in popularity. there is plenty of time and plenty of events we cannot foresee that will happen between now and november 2014 that will make any prediction useless and the relevant. host: let's look ahead to 2016. guest: even better. host: you brought up the 47% story which one a george holcombe ward. -- a george polk award. how will that story be remembered in relation to future elections? guest: i'm assuming everyone will be more careful about what they say. looking back at the video, once the dust settled, it struck me

that why hasn't this happened before? we have had years of people running around and everybody has a video recorder, not everybody, but they have it in their pocket with their smartphones and yet nobody had really been caught in such a manner as mitt romney to that point. candidates will make , when they get behind closed doors, a little more worried about telling people what they really think. i don't know if that is good or bad but hopefully, the more a speaks more consistently behind closed doors and in front of closed doors, the better we will be. that there will always be slipups. how many times have we had a candidate or public figure say something when a microphone was on and they did not realize it?

moment.nother oops it is human nature to forget could,erything you say within moments, reach millions if not audience of people. the: do you hear from bartender who supplied the video from that story? scott outedand himself last april. as the source of this. he went on to get a pretty damn good job with the united steelworkers, working on international labor rights and labor conditions. he has traveled around the world trips to helpe of investigate labor conditions and developing,and

emerging economies. he is quite happy. often whistleblowers end up getting the short end of the stick. but he managed to parlay this into a job, last time i spoke to him, developing, emerging economies. and he was over the moon about it. host: we are talking with david corn, the washington bureau chief of "mother jones." this follows a similar show we did earlier this month at the national review. here to talk with david corn isvita from california. caller: good morning, welcome to the show. about the feel media and how they are dictating what is being said on the massive media outlets from cable and he was over the moon about it. tv, from " meet the rose, pbs orlie "washington journal?" nobody is holding them accountable for the information they are putting out into the public atmosphere. the discourse is not coming from

the politicians. and coming from the media the misinformation and stories they tell. they are not asking the questions they are supposed to be asking, the people they have on their shows. guest: thanks for the question. i know exactly where you are coming from. less a o have discouraged or discouraging perspective on mainstream media. in part because i know many people who work for the big outlets who i think are great reporters. i did a book called " hubris" about the selling of the iraq war with michael izikoff and is now the chief investigative reporter for nbc news and i am a fan of his work. reporters throughout cable networks, " the new york times" and " the washington post"

produce good stories. overall, there are limitations to the mainstream media. i think they often are overly ,eferential to official sources in some cases the president or republican leaders, congress, and they often cover things with a false equivalence that each side is equally correct and that they do not do what i think is the prime mission of journalism which is to tell people the truth, not just to tell people what others are saying. that sometimes means evaluating someone when they say something that is wrong or contradicted by in an aggressive way. in some instances, corporate ownership plays a role in the media functions but often, it is other social norms for the media. in partthey don't often want tos confrontational and worry about

taking off people off a beat so they don't get the inside story they need to get their stories on air to the paper. there is a lot of things out there. i think that more than any of the time in future, you ask about who keeps an eye on the media and how can they be checked, more than any time, we have the ability, whether it is atother jones" or people "the national review," because of the web, rna -- are now able get out there and say the media is blowing the story here and we think they don't have it right there and are able sometimes even to force changes or corrections but also, just be part of the debate. you can go on c-span and talk about a story from "the new york times" and come up with a different opinion or the way to shape the conversation that is ongoing about that particular

story. i think there is a lot of remedial reaction -- of immediate reaction to social anda on the left, right, middle. there are groups like fact check.org better fact checking politicians and what people are saying in the media. put this altogether and i think think it's easier now than it has ever been for people out there, consumers, voters, to get good information. the downside is that there is a flood of information. we are constantly being bombarded with data and input. a good, savvy media consumer and those of us in the media have to be smart about finding ways to penetrate and cut through all the clutter out there and reach an audience we think with good information. what is your subscription

numbers and online readership? guest:oh - i haven't checked recently but i think maybe we have 200,000 circulation. the website -- " started as a magazine but probably 75% of the copy we produce at the bureau goes right to the website. news media is a 24/7 operation. blended, a bimonthly magazine and a nano second news operation on the website. the website we are getting several million unique visitors per month. our traffic has gone up steadily over the course of the last year. the recent attention on things

in washington like the shutdown on the debt ceiling pumps up our traffic. like we are a major and working within the mainstream media as well in terms of the impact we we have on the stories we cover. host: 501(c)(3) is a nonprofit but you still accept advertising? guest: we do. our revenue comes from advertising in the magazine, andrtising online, donations. a lot of our donations come from subscribers, small donors we call them, who give on top of their subscription fee. then we have people who give more and we had a big fundraiser just the other week in san francisco where we auctioned off packages and raised probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars. we have a diversified stream of revenue which i think is really

important of these days. it's a good model for the media. host: what does your advertising say about your readership? we just showed some ads and there is one for the 2014 wall calendar for cats against the bomb. a save the planet at green singles. magazine advertising is different than online advertising. sometimes in online advertising, i will see something pop up for a conservative group like ann coulter's book. looking forre mainstream media consumers go to sites on the left, right, and the middle. ways, thene, in some advertising is more targeted to people looking for a progressive audience and sometimes people come to us -- let's call them

unconventional products -- that they think might appeal to some liberals. nationme to us or "the magazine." waiting fromis atkins minnesota on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning. corn, i am very, very upset as an american with the shutdowns. there is the threat of shutdown and the actual shutdown. party assee the tea negotiating. i see this as extortion. this last time, the american people paid the price tag of extortion. is-do went to know have some legal system like the fbi or what ever, checking into

this extortion? we have been extorted. i don't think we can get by thehner mugshotted fbi on charges of extortion but your larger point is right. the tea party folks are a minority of the republican party but yet they are the tail that wags the dog. they do not believe in compromise. i go back to the story i put up about ted cruz's

father and the speeches he's given on behalf of his son at tea party republican events and he says we have had enough of compromise. he said we have enough of established republicans and we don't want to compromise. it seems to me that is not a fair reading of what the founders had in mind when they created our system. they created a system that is hard to pass legislation, a lot of checks and balances, but they did that purposely to make things slow but to force people to come together and work things out in a deliberative fashion. i don't think they envision people misusing the roles or the system to say no and if you don't do this my way, i will blow up the economy with a default or the debt crisis or throw people out of work, hundreds of thousands of people i'm a by having a government shutdown. this is new. this is a new tactic that has been brought about by a minority of the republican party and only now are we seeing glimmers that other republicans come a more reasonable republicans, some governors, some senators, are saying as much as we don't like a rock obama and we want to stick to and service of printable's, we don't buy into this hostage taking form of political terrorism. up to 2014s ahead and 2016, we will see that this tension and the republican party

, i call it a civil war, i think will just get worse. theill get exacerbated and republican party will have to decide for itself if they are reasonable people who can compromise while adhering to conservative ideas or will they let the tea party hostage takers grabbed the economy -- drive the economy into the ground and pull the rest of us over the cliff? it's a metaphor but thank you. host: david horn is the washington bureau chief of "mother jones." thanks so much for joining us this morning. for having made. host: up next, welfare reform took leisa 1996 but "mother reporter says the program has suffered since then and that report will be here to talk with us and later, and the about is here to talk dark money. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> it's a 30 3 a.m. eastern

time. an update on syria. for the chemical weapons group says the destruction of equipment producing chemical weapons has been completed. the announcement comes one day ahead of the november 1 deadline basedy the hague - organization for damascus to destroy or render inoperable all chemical weapon production facilities and machinery for mixing chemicals into poison gas and filling munitions. in the states, former homeland security secretary janet napolitano, now president of the university of california, says she is devoting $5 million to provide special counseling and financial aid to students living illegally in the united states. in prepared remarks released by her office, she describes the funds as a down payment demonstrating a commitment to all academically qualified students. since she was named the 20th president of uc in july,

critics have worried that she would be hostile to students run into the country illegally as children because of her background in washington and is a former governor of arizona. booker will be sworn in today as senator by vice resident joe biden. the former newark mayor will be joined by a number of family members including his mother and brother, his father passed away earlier this month. cory booker served as the newark, new jersey governor for seven years and will be sworn in admin, eastern time and you can watch live senate coverage on c- span two. those are some of the latest headlines. >> i never expected to write an entire walk -- an entire book on cancer until i was diagnosed at a relatively young age at 36. i was astonished at how different i thought it was. how different it was going through treatment than what i had heard about cancer or

expected cancer to be. i sort of expected to join a well oiled machine in which fewer was not guaranteed that people know about my particular cancer and i found something really different. i could not help not writing about it. >> a cancer survivor explores on economic impact of cancer american society sunday night at 9:00 eastern, part of book tv this weekend on c-span two. " washington journal continues. host: stephanie is the "mother joins policy reporter and us now as we continue our spotlight today on "the washington journal" on "mother jones." let's start with the side of your beat that has to do with domestic policy issues.

you have covered a bit on welfare reform. her latest story on the issue notes that despite an economic uptick, welfare reform is leaving more of the poorest americans and deeper poverty. why is that? guest: back in 1996 when the welfare program was basically reformed, it was change from an entitlement program like food stamps. in the old days, if there was a recession or economic problem, the number of people who were able to get welfare benefits went up with the need. so1996, they changed that there is a fixed amount of money available for welfare. during the recession the last couple of years, you look at the numbers in the program just has not expanded to meet the need because there is not any more money available. the budget has not changed since 1996. there has been $60 billion for the last almost 20 years now.

thanks to inflation, the value of the budget has fallen almost 30%. at the same time, the need has grown during the recession. host: one of your most well- known pieces on welfare and welfare reform and its impact was " brave new welfare" about a trip you may to georgia. guest: a couple of years ago, i spent time in georgia because georgia had gotten an award during the bush administration for dropping the most number of people off the welfare rolls . i went to take a closer look at what was happening. they claim that all of these people were going to work but actually, none of those people were going to work for the state was just dropping them and they were finding all sorts of reasons to prevent women with children from getting benefits even though most of these people were incredibly poor. they had fixed their numbers a little bit. one person would get a job and there were so few people who are

in the program that that looked like a big jump. when i was in georgia, i was basically canvassing public housing projects and i could not find a single person there who had actually received a welfare check. they were occasionally getting a child care subsidy so they could go to work through the program but that was it. in georgia, there are parts where the poverty rate in some counties is pushing 40%. these are not people who are well off. they were really struggling and they were not able to get anything through this program. host: if you want to talk to mencimer from "mother jones," our phone lines are open. we are talking about your latest piece -- thatstory ends by noting

maybe it's time for welfare to be reformed in a way that gives poor kids a fair shot at a decent future. what are some of the ways that can happen? know it is sort of controversial to say this but there are quite a few people since welfare was reformed, about 1.3 million poor families including children that the mother is not working and they are also not getting cash benefits. how to those people actually get by day by day? the food stamp program has expanded because of the recession and more people are getting food stamps but you cannot buy diapers with food stamps. --have this kind of rowing we have this kind of growing disconnect the population. because we know that child poverty has very lasting impact and affect the way kids perform in school and their is science

showing children's brains can be affected for a lifetime from the stress of poverty -- at some point, we will have to figure out how to help these families. that their to say mothers should be working but what we know about these families is that many of the women are disabled and not getting any disability payments. they are people who are really at the bottom of the income level. for their children to have a shot in life, we will have to give them some cash. younot sure exactly how would craft a program like that but the old welfare system kind of works that way. it was not a lot of money but it was enough to raise eagle above 50% of the poverty level. -- to raise people above 50% of the poverty level. in many states, they don't even list a poor family above 10% of the federal already level which is like $5,000 per year for a family of three. this issue of welfare was

something that senator mike lee, republican from utah, brought up in a speech earlier this week. this was at the heritage foundation and as part of that notes that we need a new comprehensive antipoverty upward mobility agenda designed not simply to help people in poverty but to help and empower them to get out. he says that utah is home to an enormously successful private welfare system led by churches, businesses, immunity groups and volunteers. do you think that sort of system can be transplanted to a national level? guest: well, that's interesting. i am actually from utah. lds recognize that the

church has a tremendous and well organized welfare system. i am not sure that you tuck can be a model for the rest of the country. the church there is big and has a lot of money and is really well organized and works pretty well with the state government to do those things. one of the reasons we have the federal welfare program is that we cannot -- the churches could not do it all. they try and there are lots of good people doing this but it was not enough. you talk to people in churches and they say they are plugging a hole and the private system is not organized well enough and they cannot bring the kind of resources to bear that the federal government can. host: a few colors are waiting --we are featuring several reporters from "mother jones." dan is from california on our line from republicans. caller: good morning. wondering about the

comparison between depression and our welfare system now. do you think the welfare system compare to the depression as far as what people are getting, how much? guest: comparing it to the depression? i'm not a complete expert on the history of the program but i don't believe the welfare system existed during the depression. there is probably more to it now than there was them but not much. ie average benefit check, think, if you can get cash out of the welfare system, a family of three in the states can -- can't get more than about $300 per month. host: how have those numbers changed since the 1996 reform? guest: not at all.

the checks, if anything, have gotten smaller. host: we will go to becca from sweetwater, oklahoma. caller: good morning. i am caught actually calling from texas. i'm in a state where our governor has chosen to not accept the extended medicaid money offered by the government just to do anything opposite of what obama thinks. there are so many people that need this. i am a recipient and i love longer will be getting medicaid. wondering how it's possible that a state can choose not to take money when they have so many needy residents, guest: that's a really good question and such an important one. states like texas are really going to have an interesting couple of years of they decide -- if they continue not to take the medicaid expansion. the main reason texas can do this is the supreme court.

the chalice of the affordable care act in the supreme court led to a decision -- the challenge of the affordable care act in the supreme court led to that the affordable care act was constitution but the one thing that was killed was that some states have decided to opt out and some of them are the states with the largest number of uninsured people in the country like texas. the big problem is that the crafters of the affordable care act never envisioned a state would turn down that much money. texas is eligible for williams of dollars in medicaid funding -- for the audience of dollars in medicaid funding for the residents and they are turning it down which does not make any sense on any level. and because oft that, there will be a large group of people in those states not only cannot get medicaid but they will not be able to yet private insurance with subsidies through the exchanges because

their income level is actually too low and the way the system was set up was that people under 138% of the poverty line would be able to get medicaid. toyou make too much money get the old medicaid and not enough to get a subsidy, you will be uninsured. the states are really going to have to wrestle with that. i think residents like you -- i don't know -- i think it will be up to the voters if they want to keep the people in office made that decision. guest: a few comments on twitter -- guest: i think we have to recognize that there are people who, for whatever reason, are not able to work. if you look at the people who

are in this kind of disconnected group -- they are not working and they are not receiving cash benefits through welfare -- they are in pretty bad shape. i have met some of these people and many of them suffer from mental illness and some of them are taking care of other relatives who are sick. they cannot really abandon their grandmothers and go to work full-time and care for their own children. there are many reasons why people -- this whole issue of self-reliance -- it's nice in theory but in practice, you are still looking at millions of kids who are living in extreme poverty. it's not their fault. at some point, the country has to decide if we wanted to those kids a shot at a better future or will we expect five-year- year-olds to become self-reliant somehow and pull themselves out of poverty? how well run the welfare programs we have been talking about?

here is a fox news story that says -- guest: food stamps is a pretty big program. i will have to take the government's word that there is a small amount of fraud but if it comes at the expense of people who are honestly getting benefits from the program, i'm not sure that's an enormous trade all. the groups they are talking cutt making a $40 billion to the food stamp program and the budget negotiations -- $220 million out of 40 billion is not that much money. host: tim is up next for george on our line for independents. yes, a question i had

was basically, as an independent, i listen to a lot about republicans speak reform but i would like for you to really explain to these people that when you do that, you are hurting the kids more just like with food stamp reform. many parents need that to feed their kids because of the unemployment and because of the problems you mentioned. i think it needs to be explained that this is something used to help. the republicans have branded it as people who are lazy, no good and worthless to society. i would like for you to get on here. , to no avail, to explain it to them. maybe you could do better or it i appreciate the effort. guest: thanks very much for

those comments. yes, when republicans talk about wanting to reform safety net programs, they always seem to present it as if they are doing poor people a big favor. they make it look like it's a great favor to cut the food stamp program from a family somehow just getting by. more, theyyou suffer will rally and get themselves out of the situation is what they make it sound like and it does not make any sense. they said the same thing about welfare reform in 1996. they said we will take these people and not going to give them any support and they will be forced to use self-reliance to pull themselves out of harvard take. we will be doing them a big favor. a bunch of people quit the clinton administration in protest over that. they recognize that, over time, this will cause extreme suffering for people on the lowest levels of the income ladder. it did not happen right away but

we are seeing it now. we have the vague growth and these people are really suffering -- we have is that growth and these people are really suffering with kids. if you look at the numbers, in or 1997, about 50% of really poor kids were getting some sort of assistance through the welfare program. that number is down to 23%. we have vast stretches of the country where there is really deep rtm people are or not addig any money and it did not help them. it did not do them any big favor. these kids are still really poor and they are struggling and their families can barely keep the lights on. that did not work. the idea that we would apply that model to the food stamp per gram just models the mind. mencimer is the domestic policy reporter for "mother jones." what else have you worked on recently? guest: let's see -- most

recently, i was writing a little about the judicial nomination fight coming up in the next couple of weeks. get some ofing to his nominations to the dc circuit, the appellate court in dc. there are bunch of vacancies on the court right now and he has been trying for several years to fill them and the republicans really don't want him to fill those seats. they are trying some new tactics to make sure that obama in his last couple of years will get almost no judgments -- almost no judges put on the dc circuit onch has a big impact regulatory cases and when people challenge federal regulations, they wind up in the dc circuit so that court is heavily republican right now. there are eight judges on the court and four of them are republican appointees and for our democrat.

they also have five or six senior judges who hear cases on that circuit most of them are republicans as well. guest: you are one of the original dc bureau reporters for " back to 2007. how has the bureau changed since 2007? guest: it's so much bigger, it's amazing grade when i started here, there were four of us reporters and a couple of editors and now we have so many that we are overloading our internet everyday. we cannot even keep up with the traffic we are producing. it is really great. job, i wast got the supposed to come in as an investigative fellow and i assumed i would work at home and do some investigative projects. a couple of months later, they said we've got this office and we will have daily stories on the website and we will do all kinds of stuff. it was a little bit of a work in progress back then. six years later, here we are with all these great people.

we have our 47% video success last year and people are talking as an"mother jones" innovative and interesting place in a way that we just weren't six years ago so it is exciting. several folks are waiting to chat with you. frank is waiting on our republican line from florida. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? hi, stephanie. should workpeople for the welfare. i think the government should set up a program where they can go out and do something to get their food stamps or money or whatever. they had this back in the 1920s. unless you think it is a disgrace to work for food stamps. i think there is a lot of

misconceptions about food stamps. but most the numbers of the people getting food stamps are working. -- i'm not sure of the numbers but most of the people getting food stamps are working. if you have a minimum wage job and a family of three, you are below the federal poverty line. many of these people are already working. in places where they are not, don't wantcause they to. it's because there are no jobs there. it would be great if people -- most people on food stamps would rather not be. what you are referring to about the jobs program is that there was a time in this country when we had -- there were federal jobs and there was talk about this when we had the debate over the stimulus package in 2009 after the financial crisis. i think it was during the roosevelt era, we had the civilian conservation corps. the government would hire people to go out and do stuff like build cabins in federal parks

and they found jobs to employ people because the unemployment rate was so high at that time. we just don't do that anymore. no one wants to pay for it so it would cost money to make people work for their food stamps. i don't see anyone really considering that right now. host: from twitter -- virginia is waiting from huntsville, alabama, on our line for democrats, good morning. caller: good morning, stephanie, hi -- i wanted to talk with david. i do get the "mother jones" magazine and i want to thank c- span for having you on c-span this morning. i hope they will do this more often like maybe once per month. about the welfare -- i have questions to ask you.

i also have some comments. i thank the lord that i have orer had to receive welfare anybody that i know in my family. i was gainfully employed with the federal government for over 40 years. i have often heard them talk about welfare but i have never have known anyone to receive it. i want to ask you this -- what can we as american citizens do about the federal government not helping people that are disabled and that need the not so muchram, because they are lazy, but because they are just unable to support themselves. thatanie, i honestly feel many things happening to our country is happening because of what the bible says about a nation mistreating their poor. they are trying to destroy the

middle class. guest: you are touching on a lot of hot topics right now. i think you make some really good points there. what can you do about it is a good question. voting is probably your best tactic. it's interesting what you mentioned about the bible because many people in congress and in the political scene who have said -- i think it was rick santorum who was running for president last year -- who actually said it is good for people to suffer. -- he did not think we should help people who are poor. because the bible says suffering is good for them and builds character and i think that is kind of a theme you see running through republican politics -- people who talk about the bible and being good christians but they seem to have forgotten the part that you mentioned that requires being good to the poor. i think a lot of this debate has

come up with a new pope who is trying to remind people that the lotstian church does a about caring about people in poverty and we just don't have that right now. host: caller: hi, how are you doing this morning? host: good, go ahead. caller: i just waited to mention -- i'm almost 40 years old. it seems like the d for the forcratic party stands dependents. you have all of these people calling wanting medicaid, stamps, wanting disability, wanting all of these benefits run the government. do not get me wrong. you need to take care of people who are poor. but i just feel like so many